ECEN 5007 SOLAR THERMAL POWER PLANTS Lecture 10: Design and Optimization of CSTP Plants

July 31, 2012 Manuel A. Silva, Dr.Ing. - Manuel J. Blanco, Ph.D., Dr.Ing. TWTH 17:00-19:30 - Class Room: ECCR 1B55 Office Hours: TWTH 15:30-16:30

THE DESIGN PROCESS

5 Optimization of plant configuration Optimization of CSTP plant The Need of Simulations Classic Design Criteria The Design Process Advanced Design Criteria Advanced Design Methods

Optimization of CSTP plants

High number of parameters q Optical, thermal, hydraulic properties of each component, q Efficiency curves, parasitic consumptions, etc q Size and cost of each component Complex physical models q Probabilistic (Monte-Carlo) or convolute optic models, q Thermo-hydraulic models, q High variability of input parameters (meteorological data). Operational strategies q Defocusing strategy in the solar field, q Backup boiler usage, q Thermal storage system usage, q Start-Up and Cool-down strategies, q Production optimization with respect to economic criteria

Optimization of CSTP plants

Benefits / Uses of simulation: q Estimating the final cost of energy from technological data. q Comparing amongst different technologies without the need to build everything. q Setting the next steps in R&D in order to reach a competitive technology.
Where shall we put the effort?

q Translating a technological improvement into the final impact in the energy price. q Finding technological niches. Drawbacks / Dangers of simulation: q Self-fulfilling prophecies. q Shape reality according to the model restrictions. q Ignoring the accuracy of the model (hypothesis).

Optimization of CSTP plants

Key decisions: q Solar technology q Nominal electric power q Thermal storage q Hybridization Design parameters : q Design Point: Instant of time and conditions for which the plant is designed to produce its nominal electric power. q Solar multiple: Ratio of actual solar field size to the minimum size required to run a turbine at full capacity at design point. q Capacity factor: Ratio of the actual output of a power plant over a period of time and its output if it had operated at full nameplate capacity the entire time

Optimization of CSTP plants

Classic design criteria

Optimization of CSTP plants

Design point
q Definition Instant of time (day of the year, and time of the day) and external conditions for which the CSTP plant is assumed to operate at nominal conditions. q Information Needed DNI (850 950 W/m2) Date and time - Sun position - Optical efficiency (cosine factor, shadowing, and blocking) Ambient temperature (25 30 C) Relative humidity

Optimization of CSTP plants

Solar multiple
q Definition Ratio of actual solar field size to the minimum size required to run a turbine at full capacity at design point.
SM =
SM< 1

Qthermal,Nominal

SolarField PowerBlock

Qthermal,Nominal
SM> 1 ~ 1.2

SM> 1 ~2

SM= 1

SM> 1 ~ 1.5
Available Solar Power Solar Field Thermal Power Gross Electric Power Defocused Power

Optimization of CSTP plants

Capacity factor
q Definition Ratio of the actual output of a power plant over a period of time and its output if it had operated at full nameplate capacity the entire time.
CapacityFactor = ElectricEnergy Year ElectricPowerNominal 8760 h
Online: 37%

Offline: 63%

Optimization of CSTP plants

LEC (Levelized Electricity Cost)
q Definition 1 Ratio of the total cost associated with building and operating a CSTP plant and the energy produced by that plant over its lifetime.
LEC = CAPEX + OPEX Annual Years UsefulLife E Electric Annual Years UsefulLife
Evolution of the LCOE for the different C STP technologies
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

LCOE

q Definition 2
Present price at which the electricity produced by a CSTP plant must be sell so that the Net Present Value associated to the CSTP investment project is zero.

Year
Parabolic Trough (Max.) Fresnel (Min.) Dish-Engine (Max.) Parabolic Trough (Min.) Power Tower (Max.) Dish-Engine (Min.) Fresnel (Max.) Power Tower (Min.)

Optimization of CSTP plants

Main characteristics
q Location and MDY q CSTP Technology PT/ Tower / Working fluid
BOUNDARY CONDITIONS CONCEPT DESIGN

TECHNOLOGY

POWER BLOCK

HTF

q Thermal Storage System (TES) q Hybridization q Nominal Power q Solar Multiple

TES HYBRIDIZATION

DESIGN POINT

Optimization of CSTP plants

Solar field q Central Receiver
Heliostats Type Number Layout Receiver Type Tilt angle Tower
CONCENTRATING TECHNOLOGY DESIGN POINT

OPTIMIZATION

CRITERIA: CAPACITY FACTOR LEC SOLAR FIELD SIZE & LAYOUT

q Parabolic Trough PT Type Loop Number of Loops Layout (sub-fields) Heat Collection Element

RECEIVER

OPTIMIZED DESIGN

EFFICIENCY MATRIX

PERFORMANCE

Optimization of CSTP plants

Example: Luzergy, Solergy :
q Annual Simulation Very Simple Models (Efficiency Matrix) Not a design parameter Checking the adecuation of the design
FINAL DESIGN LEC CALCULATION IS IT OK? DETAILED METEOROLOGICAL DATA (TMY) EFFICIENCY MATRIX EFF= F (AZ,EL) THERMAL STORAGE TURBINE DETAILED ANNUAL EFFICIENCIES CONCEPT RE-CONSIDERATION

YES

NO

Optimization of CSTP plants

Advanced Criteria

q Four main subsystems: Solar radiation collection and concentration Thermal conversion of the solar energy Electric conversion of the thermal energy Thermal storage q Desirable technical goals: Minimize optical losses Minimize thermal losses Maximize power block efficiency Minimize TES thermal losses Optimize plant operation q Main goal: optimize economic performance Trade-off between efficiency and cost

Optimization of CSTP plants

Holistic Approach

q The design of the different sub-systems Is made separately for each one. Is optimized just for a unique design point. Is checked or adapted slightly for a few off-design points. q The CSTP plant actually Works as a whole (the different systems are interrelated). Works very often in off-design conditions. q The maximum efficiency at design point of each of the subsystems does not guarantee the maximum efficiency of the whole plant.

CET

mx

CET ,mx

Optimization of CSTP plants

Holistic Approach

q Which is the actual goal of a commercial CSTP plant? Producing the maximum possible energy (Capacity Factor). Producing the energy at the lowest price (LCOE). Earn the maximum money... q Actual Goal: Maximum economic efficiency/profitability (cost effective). Usually working in off-design conditions. q The optimum energy efficiency of the CSTP plant does not guarantee the optimum economic efficiency of the project. The main goal is the maximum economic efficiency. Depends not only on plant cost and performance, but also on external factors..

Optimization of CSTP plants

New design criteria

q The profitability of a CSTP plant strongly depends on its environment: Legal Framework Market system (premium, PPAs) Financing (Bankability) q Design should be adapted to the feasible and available business models in each situation.

Optimization of CSTP plants

Dispatchability: q Thermal Energy Storage q Hybridization

California, 2000

Optimization of CSTP plants

Criteria Production costs Capital costs O&M costs Financial return Financial risk Cost reduction potential Plant efficiency Maturity Development perspectives Local market competitiveness Land use Water demand INDICATORS USED FOR TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT Indicator Comments LCOE ($kWhe) Levelized cost of electricity. CAPEX ($MWe) OPEX ($MWhe) Modified IRR (%), Specific NPV MIRR LCOE potential reduction (%) Solar-to-electric net efficiency (%) Installed capacity worldwide (GW), No. of equivalent operating hours Project pipeline worldwide (GW) Share of local manufacturing in total investment costs (%) Land needed per energy produced (km2/ MWh) Water consumption per energy produced (m3/MWh) Investment costs of the project. Operation and maintenance cost. Modified Internal Rate of Return, Specific Net Present Value. Standard deviation of the Modified IRR. Expected LCOE reduction Mean annual net efficiency of the plant. Commercial plants in operation worldwide. Commercial plants projects worldwide. From local suppliers information Land occupied by the whole installation Consumption for cycle cooling and mirror cleaning.

Optimization of CSTP plants

Operational strategies q The way a CSTP plant is operated. q Routine operation definition: Start-up and cool-down procedures DNI, Temperatures, mass flows(solar field, TES, PB) Recirculation while Start-Up / Cool-Down Control Systems Maintenance/cleaning planning, etc q This allow to: Reach a stable production on varying conditions. Produce energy at optimum conditions (highest possible efficiency). At full load At partial loads Schedule the production, up to some limits

Optimization of CSTP plants

Operational strategies

q They severely affect the performance of the CSTP plant in the long term. q They affect the whole system: Energetic efficiency of each directly related sub-system. Efficiency/performance of the rest of the sub-systems. E.g. The operating temperature of the solar field determines the efficiency of the power block. Dispatchability. Economic profitability. q Main fields: Solar field operation. Thermal Energy Storage usage. Hybridization usage.

Optimization of CSTP plants

Advanced Methods

Probabilistic approach: q Uncertainties in simulation parameters q Deterministic Vs. Stochastic simulations q Probabilistic distributions of the results

Optimization of CSTP plants

Conclusions

q The design of a CSTP plant is a complex exercise. Careful consideration should be given to the solar resource assessment, investment costs estimates, and technology performance estimates. Software tools are needed to assist in different stages of the design process, from the definition of the design meteorological year, to the energy yield estimates of the CSTP plant. In most cases trade-off are needed between energy efficiency and cost.

Overview of available computer tools

OVERVIEW OF AVAILABLE COMPUTER TOOLS

1 Optical analysis: SOLTRACE
SolTrace: Monte Carlo ray tracer Optical simulation program of a great variety of solar concentrating systems Proprietary, non-flexible, non-expandable

OVERVIEW OF AVAILABLE COMPUTER TOOLS

1 Optical analysis: TONATIUH Tonatiuh: Monte Carlo ray tracer Optical simulation program of a great variety of solar concentrating systems Open source, easy to use, expand, adapt, and maintain

OVERVIEW OF AVAILABLE COMPUTER TOOLS

1 Optical analysis: TONATIUH

C++ object oriented Monte Carlo Ray Tracer Plug-in architecture. Operating system independent State-of-the-art GUI Open source

OVERVIEW OF AVAILABLE COMPUTER TOOLS

1 Optical analysis: TONATIUH
Tonatiuh: Available at: http://code.google.com/p/tonatiuh/ Web infrastructure support for developers and users
Developers blog Moderator

Users group

Main web site

Video channel

OVERVIEW OF AVAILABLE COMPUTER TOOLS

1 Optical analysis: comparison between SOLTRACE and TONATIUH
Parabolic trough Difference from Tonatiuhs estimate (%)

Power at the target

Tonatiuh SolTrace

OVERVIEW OF AVAILABLE COMPUTER TOOLS

1 Optical analysis: comparison between SOLTRACE and TONATIUH
Parabolic trough

Frequency distribution of photons

Tonatiuh SolTrace

OVERVIEW OF AVAILABLE COMPUTER TOOLS

1 Optical analysis: comparison between SOLTRACE and TONATIUH
Difference form Tonatiuh reference value %

HL
Difference from Tonatiuhs estimate (%)
100

Parabolic trough

Maximum Flux Density

Maximum flux density

50

Tonatiuh SolTrace

10

20

50

100

200

500

1000

Thousand rays

OVERVIEW OF AVAILABLE COMPUTER TOOLS

1 Optical analysis: usage example with TONATIUH
Parabolic Trough Incident Angle Modifier

Sun Elevation: 5

OVERVIEW OF AVAILABLE COMPUTER TOOLS

1 Optical analysis: usage example with TONATIUH
Parabolic Trough Incident Angle Modifier

Sun Elevation: 10

OVERVIEW OF AVAILABLE COMPUTER TOOLS

1 Optical analysis: usage example with TONATIUH
Parabolic Trough Incident Angle Modifier

Sun Elevation: 20

OVERVIEW OF AVAILABLE COMPUTER TOOLS

1 Optical analysis: usage example with TONATIUH
Parabolic Trough Incident Angle Modifier

Sun Elevation: 30

OVERVIEW OF AVAILABLE COMPUTER TOOLS

1 Optical analysis: usage example with TONATIUH
Parabolic Trough Incident Angle Modifier

Sun Elevation: 40

OVERVIEW OF AVAILABLE COMPUTER TOOLS

1 Optical analysis: usage example with TONATIUH
Parabolic Trough Incident Angle Modifier

Sun Elevation: 50

OVERVIEW OF AVAILABLE COMPUTER TOOLS

1 Optical analysis: usage example with TONATIUH
Parabolic Trough Incident Angle Modifier

Sun Elevation: 60

OVERVIEW OF AVAILABLE COMPUTER TOOLS

1 Optical analysis: usage example with TONATIUH
Parabolic Trough Incident Angle Modifier

Sun Elevation: 70

OVERVIEW OF AVAILABLE COMPUTER TOOLS

1 Optical analysis: usage example with TONATIUH
Parabolic Trough Incident Angle Modifier

Sun Elevation: 80

OVERVIEW OF AVAILABLE COMPUTER TOOLS

1 Optical analysis: usage example with TONATIUH
Parabolic Trough Incident Angle Modifier

Sun Elevation: 90

OVERVIEW OF AVAILABLE COMPUTER TOOLS

2 Solar field optimization and analysis: DelSol/WinDelSol
DELSOL / WINDELSOL: CRS field design Cone-optics and convolution approach, simplified economic optimization

Fig. 2. Combined Field-Receiver efficiency for north and surrounding fields versus power level Receiver orth

OVERVIEW OF AVAILABLE COMPUTER TOOLS

2 Solar field optimization and analysis: NSPOC
Economical and operating arguments might modify this conclusion. Nevertheless we strongly recommend to conomical consider north fields below 50 MW and to conduct complete comparative analysis before final choosing. MWe

The conclusion is that the breakeven point between both concepts can be found around 90 MWe without storage. When considering small plants it would be advisable from a technical poi of view to use the smaller point The atmospheric efficiency north fieldon the slant range only. Figure 3surroundingcomparison on the depends concept with cavity receiver while show the fields would be preferred beyond this point. The atmospheric efficiency for combinedwith 1 and 4 towers. for a 50 MW can see a very important 3% higher with north field plants field-receiver efficiency Again MWe plant without storage would be one fields improvement on the 4-towers plant. receivers while for 150 MW plants without storage it would be 4% larger with surrounded fields and cavity MWe and cylindrical receivers. For plants with 6 hours of storage th breakeven point for both concepts would be the around 50 MWe.

New Solar Plant Optimization Code (NSPOC): Regarding the flux distribution on the receiver panels, figure 3 presents the resulting map on cavity and on maps CRS field design and analysis cylindrical panel arrays These maps have been obtained with the CAVISOL program, and they external arrays. show algorithms Combination of optimization how critical could the flux management in external receivers be,, especially when maximum allowable limits apply to all panels -differently and not only to those facing north. rently Cone-optics and convolution approach, www.nspoc.com
Fig 3. Atmospheric efficiency for plants with 1 and with 4 towers The comparison with respect to the intercept factor can be seen in Fig 4. Some improvements on the 4 towers plant can be observed. Fig. 3. Radiation flux maps for external and cavity receivers

Fig 4. Intercept factor for plants with 1 and with 4 towers The most peculiar figures correspond to the shading & blocking efficiency and they can be seen in figure 5.

OVERVIEW OF AVAILABLE COMPUTER TOOLS

2 Solar field analysis: HOpS
HOpS: the Heliostat Optical Simulation Open-source tool just released by Google to analyze the optical behavior of heliostat fields over the course of a year with ten-minute granularity.

OVERVIEW OF AVAILABLE COMPUTER TOOLS

3 Plant performance: SAM
System Advisor Model: PT CRS LFR Parabolic dishes PV & others

OVERVIEW OF AVAILABLE COMPUTER TOOLS

3 Plant performance: SAM
System Advisor Model: Sensitivity analysis of operational strategies User friendly

OVERVIEW OF AVAILABLE COMPUTER TOOLS

3 Plant performance: SAM
System Advisor Model: Integrated financial analysis Integrated probabilistic modeling Specialized in the USA regulative framework

OVERVIEW OF AVAILABLE COMPUTER TOOLS

3 Plant performance: EOS
EOS (goddess of the dawn): Developed by GTER Parabolic troughs Thermal oil, DSG, (molten salts) Physical model of the solar field Empirical model of the power cycle Quasi-stationary, 10-min step by default Detailed calculation of mass flows and temperatures
Entrada lazos 450 400 350
Temperatura del HTF [C]

Salida lazos

Retorno campo

Impulsin campo

300 250 200 150 100 50 0

TLE (Tiempo Local Estandar)

Campo Solar 800 600

Caudal de HTF [Kg/s]

Caldera GN

Sistema de almacenamiento

Generador de vapor

400

200
0

-200
-400 -600
TLE (Tiempo Local Estandar)

OVERVIEW OF AVAILABLE COMPUTER TOOLS

3 Other codes Optical analysis Helios Mirval Optimization and analysis HFLCAL Plant performance SimulCET Solergy TRNSYS based codes